Minimalist approach to symmetric and asymmetric double object constructions: Across-linguistic analysis

References

• Abu-Joudeh, M. (2005). Multiple accusative-constructions in modern standard Arabic: A minimalist approach [Ph.D. Thesis]. University of Kansas.
   Google Scholar
• Afarli, T. (2006). Passive and argument structure. In W. Abraham & L. Leisio (Eds.), Passivization and typology: Form and function (pp. 373–25). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Al-Ansaari, J. (1996). Sharћu qatri ʔal –nada. Beirut: Daar Al- Kutub ʔal - ʕilmiya.
   Google Scholar
• Al-Istrabadi, R. (1975). Sharћ al-raDi ʕalaa al-kaafiyah. Tehran: Al-Sadiq foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Anagnostopoulou, E. (2003). The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, M. (1988). Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, M., Johnson, K., and Roberts, I. (1989) Passive arguments raised, Linguistic Inquiry 20: 219–251
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barss, A., and Lasnik, H. (1986). A note on anaphora and double objects. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 347–354
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bošković, Ž. (2007). On the locality and motivation of move and agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 38(4), 589–644. https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2007.38.4.589
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bresnan, J., and Moshi, L. (1990). Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 147–185
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broekhuis, H. (2008). Derivations and evaluations: Object shift in the Germanic languages. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Foris.
   Google Scholar
• Chomsky, N. (1995a). The minimalist program. The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chomsky, N. (1995b). Bare phrase structure. In H. Campos & P. Kempchinsky (Eds.), Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory (pp. 51–109). Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In R. Martin, D. Micheals, & J. Uriagereka (Eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik (pp. 89–156). MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowics (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chomsky, N. (2005). On phases. In Ms. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
   Google Scholar
• Citko, B. (2011). Symmetry in syntax: Merge, move and labels. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Doggett, T. (2004). All things being unequal: Locality in movement [Ph.D Thesis]. MIT.
   Google Scholar
• Falk, C. (1990). On double object constructions, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 46:53–100.
   Google Scholar
• Fassi Fehri, A. (1993). Issues in the structure of standard Arabic clauses and words. Kluwer Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Georgala, E. (2012). Applicatives in their structural and thematic function: A minimalist account of multitransitivity [ Ph.D. Thesis]. Cornell University.
   Google Scholar
• Haddican, W., & Holmberg, A. (2012). Object movement symmetries in British English dialects: Experimental evidence for a mixed case/locality approach. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 15(3), 189–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-012-9051-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haegman, L. (1991). Introduction to government and binding theory. Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Hartman, J. (2012). (Non-) intervention in A-movement: Some cross-constructional and crosslinguistic considerations. Linguistic Variation, 11, 121–148. https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.11.2.01har
   Google Scholar
• Jaeggli, O. (1986). Passive. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 587–622
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeong, Y. (2007). Applicatives: Structure and interpretation from A minimalist perspective. Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Kayne, R. (1983). Connectedness. Linguistic Inquiry, 14, 223–249.  http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178324
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larson, R. (1988). On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry, 19(3), 335–391. doi: 10.2307/25164901
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, J. –. E. (2004). Ditransitive structures and (anti-)locality [PhD Thesis]. Harvard University.
   Google Scholar
• Legate, J. (2003). Some interface properties of the phase. Linguistic Inquiry, 34, 505–516 3. doi:10.1162/ling.2003.34.3.506
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, A. (1990). Order and constituent in Mandarin Chinese. Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Maalej, Z. (1999). Passives in modern standard and Tunisian Arabic. Matériaux Arabes et Sudarabiques-Gellas, 9, 51–76.
   Google Scholar
• Mahajan, A. (2000). Oblique subjects and Burzio’s generalization. In E. Reuland (Ed.), Arguments and case: Explaining Burzio’s generalization (pp. 79–102). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Malhotra, S. (2011). Movement and intervention effects: Evidence from Hindi/Urdu [Ph.D Thesis]. University of Maryland.
   Google Scholar
• Marantz, A. (1993). Implications of asymmetries in double object constructions. In Sam A. M. (Ed.), Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar 1, 113–151. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publication.
   Google Scholar
• McGinnis, M. (1998). Locality in A-movement [PhD Thesis]. MIT.
   Google Scholar
• McGinnis, M. (2001). Variation in the phase structure of applicatives. Linguistic Variation Yearbook, 1, 105–146. https://doi.org/10.1075/livy.1.06mcg
   Google Scholar
• McGinnis, M. (2004). Lethal ambiguity. Linguistic Inquiry, 35(1), 47–95. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438904322793347
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Öztürk, B. (2006). Case, EPP and passivization in Turkish. In W. Abraham & L. Leisio (Eds.), Passivization and typology: Form and function (pp. 383–402). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Omer, A., Al-nahhas, M., Mohammed, Z., & Abdullatif, H. (1984). An-naħu al-asasi. That As-Salasil.
   Google Scholar
• Pak, M. (2008). A-movement and intervention effects in Luganda. In Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 361–369.
   Google Scholar
• Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero syntax: Experiencers and cascades. The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pylkkänen, L. (2001). What applicative heads apply to. In M. Fox, A. Williams & E. Kaiser (Eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, 7.1. University of Pennsylvania.
   Google Scholar
• Pylkkänen, L. (2002). Introducing arguments [PhD Thesis]. MIT.
   Google Scholar
• Pylkkänen, L. (2008). Introducing arguments. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Richards, M. (2012). On feature inheritance, defective phases, and the movement-morphology connection. In A. Gallego (Ed.), Phases: Developing the framework (pp. 195–232). Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Ryding, K. (2005). A reference grammar of modern standard. In Arabic. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Saeed, F. (2011). The syntax of verbal agreement in minimalism: Formal feature valuation in English and standard Arabic [Ph.D Thesis]. EFL University.
   Google Scholar
• Saeed, F. (2016). On move and agree: evidence for in-situ agreement. http://www.phil.muni.cz/linguistica/art/saeed/sae-001.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Sibawayh, A. (1985). (8th century). Al-kitaab.1938. Cairo: Bulaaq.
   Google Scholar
• Sigurðsson, H., & Holmberg, A. (2008). Icelandic dative intervention: Person and number are separate probes. In R. D’Alessandro (Ed.), Agreement restrictions (pp. 251–279). Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Soltan, U. (2007). On formal feature licensing in minimalism: Aspects of standard Arabic morphosyntax [PhD thesis]. University of Maryland.
   Google Scholar
• Ssekiryango, J. (2006). Observations on double object construction in Luganda. In A. Arasanyin & Pemberton, M. (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference on African Linguistics (pp. 66–74). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
   Google Scholar
• Swan, O. (2002). A grammar of contemporary Polish. Slavica Publisher.
   Google Scholar
• Ura, H. (1996). Multiple feature-checking: A theory of grammatical function splitting [PhD Thesis]. MIT.
   Google Scholar
• Ura, H. (2000). Checking theory and grammatical functions in universal grammar. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Woolford, E. (1993). Symmetric and asymmetric passives. In Natural language and linguistic theory, 11 (pp. 679–728).
   Google Scholar
• Woolford, E. (1997). Four-way case systems: ergative, nominative, objective and accusative. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 15, 181–227 1. doi:10.1023/A:1005796113097
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woolford, E. (2003). Burzio’s generalization and markedness. In E. Brandner & H. Zinsmeister (Eds.), New perspectives on case theory (pp. 301–330). Standford, CA: CSLI.
   Google Scholar
• Wright. (1898). A grammar of the Arabic language. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar